As Isaid last night, the fatal contradiction between, on one hand, U.S. neocons’ mania for “spreading Muslim democracy” and, on the other hand, a rational concern for Israel’s security, a subject I’ve written about for years, has finally emerged into the light of day as an issue dividing Israelis from neocons, with Israeli commentators (and the Netanyahu government quietly in the background) strongly criticizing the neocons for their utopianism. Now one of the hard core neocons, Elliot Abrams, replies.

I asked Elliott Abrams, formerly of the Bush Administration National Security Council, and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he makes of the Israeli longing for Mubarak. He was scathing in his response:

The Israelis first of all do not believe in the universality of democracy. They believe what many American “experts” did in, say, 1950—democracy was fine for us and Western Europe, but not for Latins (too much Catholic culture) and Asians (too much Confucianism). They believe Arab culture does not permit democracy.

[James P., who sent the item, comments: Sounds like they are far saner and better informed than many neocons, including especially Elliott Abrams! The Israeli experience with Arabs is practical and direct, Elliott Abrams experience is hypothetical and indirect—gee, whom should we believe on this issue?]

They see a danger in Mubarak’s fall, and they are right: we do not know who will take over now or in a year or two from now. But this is at bottom a crazy reaction. What they are afraid of is the Muslim Brotherhood, right? Mubarak has ruled for THIRTY YEARS and leaves us a Brotherhood that is that powerful? Isn’t that all the proof we need that dictatorship is not the way to fight the Brotherhood? He crushed the moderate and centrist groups and left the Brothers with an open field. He is to blame for the Brothers’ popularity and strength right now. The sooner he goes the better.

[James P writes: And a weak democratic leader would have fallen even faster. Does anyone think that “democracy” in Iraq or Afghanistan is going to last thirty years before extremists overthrow it?]

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

Remember when President Bush and Condoleezza Rice would say that people who had doubts about the viability of the Iraq democracy project were uncompassionate, even racist? Now Abrams has found a new way of separating out the morally retrograde from the morally advanced, the bad people from the good. Bad people don’t believe in the universality of democracy.

Gintas writes:

It’s not democracy, it’s democrazy!

The entire Jeffrey Goldberg piece is worth reproducing:

The Neocons Split with Israel Over Egypt
Feb 2 2011, 8:37 AM ET

Well, this is interesting. The neoconservative (or liberal interventionist) wing of American Jewish political thought (not that all neocons are Jewish, God forbid anyone should think that!) is cheering on the revolution in Egypt, while the Israeli government, and much of Israel’s pundit class, is seeing the apocalypse in Mubarak’s apparent downfall. Writing in The Times today, Yossi Klein Halevi captures the despairing mood of the Israeli policy elite:

“(T)he grim assumption is that it is just a matter of time before the only real opposition group in Egypt, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, takes power. Israelis fear that Egypt will go the way of Iran or Turkey, with Islamists gaining control through violence or gradual co-optation.

Either result would be the end of Israel’s most important relationship in the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood has long stated its opposition to peace with Israel and has pledged to revoke the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty if it comes into power. Given the strengthening of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas’s control of Gaza and the unraveling of the Turkish-Israeli alliance, an Islamist Egypt could produce the ultimate Israeli nightmare: living in a country surrounded by Iran’s allies or proxies.

But the neoconservatives, who have made democracy promotion in the Middle East an overarching goal, are scratching their heads at what they see as Israeli shortsightedness. I asked Elliott Abrams, formerly of the Bush Administration National Security Council, and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he makes of the Israeli longing for Mubarak. He was scathing in his response:

The Israelis first of all do not believe in the universality of democracy. They believe what many American “experts” did in, say, 1950—democracy was fine for us and Western Europe, but not for Latins (too much Catholic culture) and Asians (too much Confucianism). They believe Arab culture does not permit democracy.

They see a danger in Mubarak’s fall, and they are right: we do not know who will take over now or in a year or two from now. But this is at bottom a crazy reaction. What they are afraid of is the Muslim Brotherhood, right? Mubarak has ruled for THIRTY YEARS and leaves us a Brotherhood that is that powerful? Isn’t that all the proof we need that dictatorship is not the way to fight the Brotherhood? He crushed the moderate and centrist groups and left the Brothers with an open field. He is to blame for the Brothers’ popularity and strength right now. The sooner he goes the better.

It’s worth remembering that, despite the various Walt and Mearsheimer-style conspiracy theories about Israeli influence on American politics, the Israelis themselves were noticeably unenthusiastic about another neoconservative notion, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In other words, the gap between Israel and the neocons that has widened over Egypt is not, in fact, new.

[end of article]

LA writes:

Goldberg is somewhat overstating the precedents of this controversy. There may have been a divergence of views before, but the disagreement was never explicit and open, let alone bitter. What is happening now is something new.